review

---
name: review
description: Use when systematically reviewing Playwright test files for anti-patterns, best-practice gaps, and coverage issues.
category: Engineering
version: 1.0.0
tools: []
---

# Review Playwright Tests

Systematically review Playwright test files for anti-patterns, best practices, and coverage gaps.

## Scope

Accepts:
- A file path: review that specific test file
- A directory: review all test files in the directory
- Empty: review all tests in the project's configured test directory

## Gathering Context

- Read Playwright configuration for project settings
- Identify all `*.spec.ts` / `*.spec.js` files in scope
- For single-file reviews, check related page objects and fixtures

## Anti-Patterns Assessment

Evaluate test files against 20 anti-patterns:

**Critical (must fix):**
- `waitForTimeout()` usage (use role-based assertions instead)
- Non-web-first assertions (`expect(await ...)`)
- Hardcoded URLs instead of `baseURL` from config
- CSS/XPath selectors when role-based alternatives exist
- Missing `await` on Playwright method calls
- Shared mutable state between test cases
- Test execution order dependencies

**Warning (should fix):**
- Tests longer than 50 lines (consider splitting)
- Magic strings without named constants
- Missing error and edge case test coverage
- `page.evaluate()` for operations locators can perform
- Nested `test.describe()` more than 2 levels deep
- Generic test names ("should work", "test 1")

**Info (consider):**
- Missing page objects for pages with 5+ locators
- Inline test data instead of factory/fixture patterns
- Missing accessibility assertions
- No visual regression tests for UI-heavy pages
- Console error assertions not checked
- Network idle waits instead of specific interaction assertions
- Missing `test.describe()` grouping

## Scoring Methodology

Rate each file 1-10:
- **9-10**: Production-ready, follows all patterns
- **7-8**: Good code, minor improvements possible
- **5-6**: Functional but has anti-patterns
- **3-4**: Significant issues, likely flaky
- **1-2**: Needs rewrite

## Review Report Output

For each file:
- Score (1-10)
- Critical issues found with line numbers
- Warning-level issues
- Suggestions for improvement
- Suggested fixes (ask user before applying)

## Project-Wide Review

For large test suites, parallelize review of individual files, then aggregate results into summary table showing:
- Total files reviewed, average score
- Critical issue count, warning count
- Coverage gaps (pages/features with no tests)